Disposing of 'Intel Inside'

tw · 05-22-2006, 11:31 PM

Intel has a long history of promoting products that fail. It comes with the industry that Intel is in. Some of the many processor lines attempted and failed include i860 series, i960, 80x9x series, and DSP processors. In each case, Intel management stuck with them until it was clear the line was not going to be successful. Two lines that did succeed were the 80x86 series and the Harvard architecture that ended with the roundly successful 8051.

Intel also dabbled in processors for cell phone. The mScale series may be a new successful market. Their attempts in MIPs were not.

Other product lines pioneered or marketed in the Intel line were bubble memory, dynamic RAM, static RAM, non-volatile NOR memory, modem chipsets, Ethernet technology, Expanded/Extended memory standards, USB technology, and various software packages. Intel created standards for plugNplay, PCI Bus, AGP video standards, and so many other concepts that were Intel product and industry standards. Intel literally created standards for all type semiconductor memory. Many of these businesses by themselves would have been primary and successful product lines in other companies. Any yet these same successes have only been secondary businesses in Intel.

So what, besides Pentium and mScale, is part of Intel's future? Strangely, Intel's new (alternative) product lines don't even appear to be consistent with Intel's past history. I just don't know of any new products that could be as successful as the 8051 line, USB standards, or non-volatile memory. Previously when a product line was maturing, then Intel sold off that product line while it was still marketable. They probably should have been selling off the memory business long ago OR developed alternative for the failing NOR EEPROM business. Instead, Intel did nothing - very uncharacteristic of Intel. These symptoms repeatedly suggest a top management that does not have a viable grasp of a primary management function - the strategic objective. To have a grasp requires that management come from where the work gets done - as Grove, Noyce, and Moore did.

Obviously early efforts by the new management leaves me unimpressed and in dread - similar to my early criticisms of John Young and Carly Fiorina.

05-22-2006, 11:31 PM	#18
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Intel has a long history of promoting products that fail. It comes with the industry that Intel is in. Some of the many processor lines attempted and failed include i860 series, i960, 80x9x series, and DSP processors. In each case, Intel management stuck with them until it was clear the line was not going to be successful. Two lines that did succeed were the 80x86 series and the Harvard architecture that ended with the roundly successful 8051. Intel also dabbled in processors for cell phone. The mScale series may be a new successful market. Their attempts in MIPs were not. Other product lines pioneered or marketed in the Intel line were bubble memory, dynamic RAM, static RAM, non-volatile NOR memory, modem chipsets, Ethernet technology, Expanded/Extended memory standards, USB technology, and various software packages. Intel created standards for plugNplay, PCI Bus, AGP video standards, and so many other concepts that were Intel product and industry standards. Intel literally created standards for all type semiconductor memory. Many of these businesses by themselves would have been primary and successful product lines in other companies. Any yet these same successes have only been secondary businesses in Intel. So what, besides Pentium and mScale, is part of Intel's future? Strangely, Intel's new (alternative) product lines don't even appear to be consistent with Intel's past history. I just don't know of any new products that could be as successful as the 8051 line, USB standards, or non-volatile memory. Previously when a product line was maturing, then Intel sold off that product line while it was still marketable. They probably should have been selling off the memory business long ago OR developed alternative for the failing NOR EEPROM business. Instead, Intel did nothing - very uncharacteristic of Intel. These symptoms repeatedly suggest a top management that does not have a viable grasp of a primary management function - the strategic objective. To have a grasp requires that management come from where the work gets done - as Grove, Noyce, and Moore did. Obviously early efforts by the new management leaves me unimpressed and in dread - similar to my early criticisms of John Young and Carly Fiorina.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)